A liberal economic solution - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 08-06-2011, 10:36 AM

The reasons it won't work are two fold, the middle class isn't spending because they are worried about losing their jobs. The 'rich' aren't investing due to the regulatory situation and the uncertainty about tax policies and the threats of increased taxes and a continuing sluggish economy.

People invest and expand business if they think they can generate a profit. They recognize that the people in power see profits as evil. I would exempt the Really rich Buffet Soros and the link who can buy their tax breaks and whine about rates being too low.

Socialist central planning and convoluted incentive programs that are temporary don'
t work. People need a predictable business friendly environment with permanent incentives for production.

When the middle class are secure about their jobs and future they will start to buy again.

***Patters*** · 08-06-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The reasons it won't work are two fold, the middle class isn't spending because they are worried about losing their jobs. The 'rich' aren't investing due to the regulatory situation and the uncertainty about tax policies and the threats of increased taxes and a continuing sluggish economy.

Those points having nothing to do with what I said. Progressive taxes give a rich person incentives to invest. Cutting taxes for the middle class almost certain means increased consumer spending. (We can also change the regulations if you think that would give an extra boost to the economy.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

People invest and expand business if they think they can generate a profit. They recognize that the people in power see profits as evil. I would exempt the Really rich Buffet Soros and the link who can buy their tax breaks and whine about rates being too low.

Socialist central planning and convoluted incentive programs that are temporary don'
t work. People need a predictable business friendly environment with permanent incentives for production.

I agree with you about a profit motive, and corporations are committed to their shareholders, not individuals. The progressive model provides incentives for corporations to do right by their shareholders, since the capital gains tax will be lower than the income tax, even in a progressive model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

When the middle class are secure about their jobs and future they will start to buy again.

Yes, that's why I'm advocating for progressive taxation, with tax cuts to the middle class!

***Patters*** · 08-07-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Yeah, that's a project, but one that needs to happen.

Trouble is you lose if you try to do overall education from the bully pulpit, unless you don't do anything else.

You can, however, make the case for the (continued) lower-rates part, among those who need the lower rates. It's not as ambitious but it has the advantage that it's doable, and every party sees it as desirable.

You may notice that the president has talked about "the rich paying their fair share," in terms of shouldering the burden. He's talking about their fair share of the "pain" of this era (since they got all the advantages of the last 20 years.)

You can make that fairness case, again, if it's all you do.

You want to fix an ingrained attitude about progressiveness in the tax code. Look around you. The proposals all go the other direction (i.e., magic tax reform fixes, where rates go down for everybody and "loopholes" get closed. Some are straightforward tax cuts.)

Think for a minute: We have pure tax giveaways but we also encourage "good" behavior with the tax code.

You know the U.S. will not vote in favor of legislating the behavior of corporations, or accepting national taxpayer supported programs.

Use green energy as an example. The greenies all think ethanol was a faux fix to energy concerns, so they want that credit gone. The right wing sees it as a challenge to big oil, so they agree. Okay fine.

What about any incentives to move forward on any other type of green energy? Those are among the "tax loopholes" that allow big oil companies to pay zero tax.

What about 401(k) matches? You only offer them to get employees to save for their own retirements -- and by the way, as much as we do want people to spend, we paradoxically need them to invest/save too. Demographics and all that... we really don't want John Q Public taking days off to care for granma for 10 years (even if she's not ill.) We also don't want him sitting his fat boomer butt down in a chair until he's 75 and refusing to move... pressuring labor markets for the young.

We need retirement. So how does that happen?

1) make it compulsory.
2) make it a national program - a national beefed up social security
3) tax-advantage it.

(3) includes tax sweeteners, and those are written into our "loopholes."

At the very least, when the Pres talks about closing loopholes, he needs to be selective about it, right? Maybe that's a teachable moment, leaving aside the idiots that think Bachmann's an economist, et al.

What can you get across to the left and the center, and have them vote for? That's the question... that's why I'd say start with small "housekeeping" things that you just have to do, tactically -- right now, to me, that means a bill to keep lower tax rates.

At the very least, make the teabaggers vote in favor of letting the Bush rates expire. Keep introducing bills to keep rates low for the middle and the poor and just vote down the ones that keep them low for the rich.

Past experience shows that's what's good for the country. Polls show that's what Americans support. Start hammering it, but start with a realistic target that's in sight legislatively...

And yes we do need to have the progressive-code conversation. I just don't know you can win that from the top level down. We'll see how the millennials change that conversation, as they changed the LBGT conversation. I'm crossing my fingers. They're a bit less political than their grandboomers, but also more connected into social nets and "team players." You would think they would "get" everybody doing things for everybody's benefit.

PFnV

I think people can be educated as to the prudence of progressive taxes, but I think politically the way to do it is to introduce the message with a tax cut for the middle class (and a balancing tax increase for the wealthy). That way, people would want to embrace the message, especially tea party members, I think, who are often (but not always) just confused white people blaming minorities for their problems. I don't think you can educate people first and then propose changes. It's the changes that will attract people and make them pay attention.

If we look at Reagan, Reagan played the race card, making racist statements in the south and lying about "welfare queens" having children so they could drive around in Cadillacs. He laid the groundwork for thew wealthy, by redirecting white anger to people of color. Before that, people like Harry Boy were union members who were against the bosses. But, then, thanks to the absence of a Democratic response, any attack on the wealthy became a "class war," as if only the poor and middle class could wage class war, but the wealthy could not. Once Reagan got into the White House he moved so quickly that our economy became a wreck (with unemployment at 10.8% after 2 years). He was forced to raise taxes and do record deficit spending, but he kept his rhetoric alive, which is still exploited by the wealthy to manipulate the tea party members and the sycophants of the wealthy.